Creative Commons License

How can you save the planet when you don’t know it needs saving?

I was dumbstruck by the scientific ignorance and vehemence of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and his position that runs contrary to good science. Nye insisted that the science of global warming was well-established and settled with 97% of all scientists agreeing that the climate was changing and that rate of change is what made it so dangerous to the planet. Ignoring key facts like the Earth has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and less carbon dioxide. And, that for approximately 200 years – the entire output of the industrial age is unnoticeable when compared to the variability of nature which has existed for millions of years.

First, you need to recognize that politicians are using science to justify public policies that result in a loss of freedom, higher taxes, greater political power for the politicians and bureaucrats, and the special interests that form a corrupt funding feedback loop that is tantamount to legal public bribery.

Has anyone noticed that the United Nations is not a scientific organization, but a self-serving organization of, by, and for politicians and policymakers?

Has anyone noticed that the brief of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ignored the entirety of global climate change and concentrated on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming?

Article 1- Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. “Adverse effects of climate change” means changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.

2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

Has anyone noticed that the real drivers of global climate change are natural and exponentially outweigh any man-made factors? Natural factors such as the Sun’s energy output in all spectral bands; cosmic rays, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s precessional and rotational dynamics, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, the Earth’s deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor? Factors that are beyond man’s ability to influence and that adaptation to the vagaries of nature is the only coping mechanism available to man at present. Worried about the results of those big storms, stop developers from buying politicians to change zoning and building codes? BTW, those big “weather” events are produced mostly by oscillations such as the El Nino/La Nina events.

Has anyone noticed that the actual terrestrial temperature records have been highly manipulated (homogenized) and the original raw data lost for all time? That many of the collection stations have been compromised by siting issues, discontinuance, or other systemic issues? That simply changing the time of day of observations can alter the record in a manner that produces inaccurate or indeterminate results? That there are only a very few stations to produce and/or project “global” results? That measurements to tenths of a degree are computational artifacts and that all measurements are well within the scope of natural variability? And, worst of all, that the temperatures are reported, not as temperatures, but as anomalies – deviations from a pre-selected 30-year baseline that hides the large timescales involved in real climate change? Not to mention that the choice of scale is used to produce those dramatic charts when the true temperature deviation varies plus or minus a few degrees Celsius.

Second, about that 97% you see bandied about. The number came from a study of research papers that purported to show some man-made global warming. There are three things wrong with this assertion:

The number should be 100% because the climate is always changing.

The idea that you can perform science is ludicrous because science is not like voting on legislation. Nobody votes yea or nay on the speed of light – or any other physical phenomena. So simply looking at the fashionable viewpoint of the day is not sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

Unfortunately, there is an inherent bias in the number of research papers; a dislocation caused by the abundance of funding for fashionable (politically acceptable) institutions, people, and projects and not so much for studies that falsify current research, demonstrate replication issues, or simply produce results that are inconclusive.

Peer-Review is a publishing process not a validation of the article's importance, veracity, applicability, or assertions. And how many people know that the subversion of the peer-review process by a few of the leading researchers has been well-documented in the Climate-gate emails.

And third, science is about skepticism, not suppression by labeling those who do not agree with you as “deniers” …

Bottom line …

To me, Bill Nye deserves the title of “The Non-science Nonsense Guy.” With billions of public funds sloshing through the system, one should wonder, not about global climate change, but about the political corruption that is destroying our nation and the corrupt mainstream media that is destroying our trust in any of our formerly respected institutions.

Why should anyone care about NASA, when Dr. Charles Bolden announced that it was one of the core missions of NASA to make Muslims feel proud of their historical contributions to science while Americans are paying billions to have Americans flown to the International Space Station by the Russians, our ideological enemies?

The first thing that scientists must do to regain their credibility is to purge their house of the charlatans who have destroyed a portion of science and the public’s trust. The first thing we must do is curtail public corruption and hold the mainstream media accountable for their omissions, distortions, lies, and diversions.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

Comments

How can you save the planet when you don’t know it needs saving?

I was dumbstruck by the scientific ignorance and vehemence of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and his position that runs contrary to good science. Nye insisted that the science of global warming was well-established and settled with 97% of all scientists agreeing that the climate was changing and that rate of change is what made it so dangerous to the planet. Ignoring key facts like the Earth has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and less carbon dioxide. And, that for approximately 200 years – the entire output of the industrial age is unnoticeable when compared to the variability of nature which has existed for millions of years.

First, you need to recognize that politicians are using science to justify public policies that result in a loss of freedom, higher taxes, greater political power for the politicians and bureaucrats, and the special interests that form a corrupt funding feedback loop that is tantamount to legal public bribery.

Has anyone noticed that the United Nations is not a scientific organization, but a self-serving organization of, by, and for politicians and policymakers?

Has anyone noticed that the brief of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ignored the entirety of global climate change and concentrated on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming?

Article 1- Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. “Adverse effects of climate change” means changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.

2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

Has anyone noticed that the real drivers of global climate change are natural and exponentially outweigh any man-made factors? Natural factors such as the Sun’s energy output in all spectral bands; cosmic rays, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s precessional and rotational dynamics, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, the Earth’s deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor? Factors that are beyond man’s ability to influence and that adaptation to the vagaries of nature is the only coping mechanism available to man at present. Worried about the results of those big storms, stop developers from buying politicians to change zoning and building codes? BTW, those big “weather” events are produced mostly by oscillations such as the El Nino/La Nina events.

Has anyone noticed that the actual terrestrial temperature records have been highly manipulated (homogenized) and the original raw data lost for all time? That many of the collection stations have been compromised by siting issues, discontinuance, or other systemic issues? That simply changing the time of day of observations can alter the record in a manner that produces inaccurate or indeterminate results? That there are only a very few stations to produce and/or project “global” results? That measurements to tenths of a degree are computational artifacts and that all measurements are well within the scope of natural variability? And, worst of all, that the temperatures are reported, not as temperatures, but as anomalies – deviations from a pre-selected 30-year baseline that hides the large timescales involved in real climate change? Not to mention that the choice of scale is used to produce those dramatic charts when the true temperature deviation varies plus or minus a few degrees Celsius.

Second, about that 97% you see bandied about. The number came from a study of research papers that purported to show some man-made global warming. There are three things wrong with this assertion:

The number should be 100% because the climate is always changing.

The idea that you can perform science is ludicrous because science is not like voting on legislation. Nobody votes yea or nay on the speed of light – or any other physical phenomena. So simply looking at the fashionable viewpoint of the day is not sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

Unfortunately, there is an inherent bias in the number of research papers; a dislocation caused by the abundance of funding for fashionable (politically acceptable) institutions, people, and projects and not so much for studies that falsify current research, demonstrate replication issues, or simply produce results that are inconclusive.

Peer-Review is a publishing process not a validation of the article's importance, veracity, applicability, or assertions. And how many people know that the subversion of the peer-review process by a few of the leading researchers has been well-documented in the Climate-gate emails.

And third, science is about skepticism, not suppression by labeling those who do not agree with you as “deniers” …

Bottom line …

To me, Bill Nye deserves the title of “The Non-science Nonsense Guy.” With billions of public funds sloshing through the system, one should wonder, not about global climate change, but about the political corruption that is destroying our nation and the corrupt mainstream media that is destroying our trust in any of our formerly respected institutions.

Why should anyone care about NASA, when Dr. Charles Bolden announced that it was one of the core missions of NASA to make Muslims feel proud of their historical contributions to science while Americans are paying billions to have Americans flown to the International Space Station by the Russians, our ideological enemies?

The first thing that scientists must do to regain their credibility is to purge their house of the charlatans who have destroyed a portion of science and the public’s trust. The first thing we must do is curtail public corruption and hold the mainstream media accountable for their omissions, distortions, lies, and diversions.